Scrape

@Buzzles I agree 2.5 is the solution I was looking for. What I read it was said to be ready by the end of 2016 in a post from Wags. Perhaps there is more up to date information when it is supposed to be ready, but I don't mind that so much. Knowing that is indeed the goal then it seems to correct much of what I was speaking of. Also in the post I found Wags also stated that the merger was long overdue and I can't ask for more than that in the terms of understanding. Hopefully it all comes together sooner rather than later. @Arsonist There are games that offer official content via the workshop. rFactor 2 has paid content that can be downloaded via the workshop for example. The key to play that content is checked post download. I'll take that you said you might misunderstand due to a language barrier into account, so I won't debate all of your points, but one stands out. My friend is a grown man. He began his journey into DCS on his own and then I spoke with him after I returned home after work. It is not my responsibility nor should it ever be anyone's responsibility to hand walk anyone into a game. If a person needs to be escorted into a game to understand it then the game has a communication problem. Beyond that its my intention to let it go now that I am aware of 2.5. I was aware of the Caucus update, but not 2.5. I play the game often, but I don't come to the forums often. I hope we have come to terms.

Buzzles take a moment to read my post. My friend did read the page which is why he posed the questions and discovered the mismatch on his own. The questions isn't weather or not it was clear, it's weather or not the condition should exist. That can and should be laid at ED's feet. I've been a customer of ED since the first Lock On and every iteration since. I know what 1.5 is. Reading isn't the issue I am raising. I am not stating a problem for myself. You read my post, but misunderstood, I am highlighting a problem in organization. We would agree that a clunky and convoluted UI takes away from a game experience and in the worst cases will ruin the game to a degree. This is also true for the purchase experience for the first time customer. Look around the market at other games. The average customer coming into the DCS store is rarely if ever exposed to this level of purchase complication and compatibility. DCS is not a new title. It's a full functioning game. Multiple single player campaigns, and multiplayer missions that can update mission status in PVP in real time to websites. Hardly what I would call Alpha at this stage. In the old days Beta signified that all the core features are functioning in the game. Isn't that what we have? Modules cost full price without a sale, and a full price experience should be offered from the beginning. We are years in, not just out of the gate, and I'm not going anywhere. I don't care if my friend plays or not. Don't you think its within the power of ED to streamline DCS? I do. Perhaps it isn't perceived as a problem otherwise I feel that it might have been addressed sooner. The road-map imo should have merged the game into one cohesive unit as soon as possible. I'm not sure what standard ED has to reach to call their game finished, but its finished. They continue to improve and expand the game, but DCS as a game is finished. Campaigns work, maps work, aircraft fly. I think it's time to sell it as a finished project. New aviators or strategist to the game should feel welcome when they arrive. There is enough study to learn the aircraft and systems. The setup and intro into the world should be easy. If a restaurant is down 3 alleys and 4 different sets of stairs there will only be but so many customers that eat there no matter how good the food is. Restaurants are made accessible so people will be tempted to try out the food. It's just good business.

I have a hardcore gaming friend wanted to get into DCS. He's the kind of guy who plays SH3 with all the assist turned off. He sees the new modules coming out feels its a good time to be a part of DCS and where its going. He downloads the Steam version then later we meet online. He wants to try multi-crew functions because that's what appealed to him to begin with. Then he sees that the Gazelle isn't comparable with the steam version (strike one). Aren't the modules in the steam workshop? He doesn't understand why the website and steam are two different versions of the same game, but ok. He deletes the steam version and downloads DCS world 1.5. Then he finds that the servers I usually frequent are on DCS 2. He thought that meant he would have to download a patch or update. I explain. Annoyance sets in (strike two). Uninstalled 1.5 and downloads 2.0. Then realizes that after buying the aircraft, and after downloaded 2.0 he would need to buy a map to just play the game (strike three). He said to call him later when the game sorted itself out. I hadn't occurred to me how confusing it must be for a newcomer who doesn't have any history with this game to get into it. There are three versions of this game out there. Two of them not compatible at all. The average consumer never has to worry about that and shouldn't be expected to. Not to mention the steep introductory price to get started without a sale, which if you don't have any history with the website wouldn't know that they are frequent. On my wishlist. One DCS game, one user interface.

This mission is not meant to be played solo. Coordination is required between players to achieve success.

Although the pilots name are on the side of the aircraft, pilots fly aircraft available according to maintenance status. Little effort if any is made to put a pilot in "their aircraft". Perhaps for a DV of significant rank, but again only if its available in the line up for that day.

Would it be possible to allow aircraft to share lasers? Lase a target for another aircraft? That would be an awesome change.

I agree Janes did a great job with the cockpit. This would be the airframe absolutely! Allowing two players in the same aircraft would be the right way to go about it though.

You might have me there. I'm not that familiar with the 'scals' for the A10, but they do change with the quadron and tasking. I've only worked the F16 and the E models.

It may sound good for what you want, but it goes against real life. In real world an aircraft would never be sent back up with a partial load. The game simulates aproved configurations. Pilots don't choose their loadouts rather they are told what they will be working with, so compared to RL you have more control, its not so bad.

Which one?

I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen like you say, of course it does, but if you have the right kind of cheif and commander the problem goes away. Most of the time its not a big deal. Usually isn't in the air force unless someone got hurt or is about to be. Navy pilots are not as free thinking as airforce counterparts and listen without distraction, obviously. Different circumstance I agree, but I seen a crew cheif loose his ability to walk from a pilots distraction. I know how it is, but I also know how it can be. Amxs has its own commander.

I'm Weapons.

I'm no QA champion, but tolerating the pilots inattentivenesscan get someone hurt. its one of those dangerous things that dosent happen except in a rare circumstance, but the rule is there for a reason. I have a few examples in my experience..

I don't know any crew cheif that would trust a stick actuator so openly, what's your afsc? Couple months ago an A10 pilot tried to go at it himself and clipped a bread truck with his wingtip here at Nellis.

Yes pilots do need another pair of eyes when moving an aircraft around on a cluttered parking area. A non game flightline or crarrier deck is crowded with people, trucks, tool boxes, and various aircraft related equipment. It keeps people safe and aircraft/equipment in one piece.

Those are great ideas, but even with hardcore simmers realism can sometimes be a burden. A true sortie would take anywhere from 4 to 10 hours depending on the combat situation. Also on the ground operations slow the time it takes to get into the action. The pulling of pins happens in chocks on the ramp, and then again at EOR before takeoff. Time in chocks...then taxi to the correct runway...then park...pins...then taxi to runway....takeoff. perhaps you or I might enjoy it, but not always, and the majority will most likely not embbrace the time delay. Walk arounds or preflight checks are done and completed before the pilots arrival. Pilots do their own walk around yes but not really, it just cursory, because most of them don't know how it works anyway. Engines? Yup wings? Yup. Panels missing? Nope. Cool I'm getting in. Damage after a sortie is the pilots resposibility to check for, but the ground crew will ultimately be responsible in the end and postflight or thruflight checks are done after the pilot has left. And ground crew don't walk with aircraft,at. Least not in the US. Overall I support the inclusion of ground crew and maintainers although I know why its over looked in games, I agree that it gives a deeper feel to the game when they are included, and is often overlooked in its importance.

+1 all the way

I'm aware of the differences between 220s and 229s. I'm a 2W1.

Ok so SDBs are desired lol. The AGM 130 isnt allowed in the AOR anymore although its still used in training, so leaving it out wouldn't be so bad. Besides the pilots are not too fond of it. When I mentioned SEAD being a problem, I'm talking about AGM 88s and certain avionics functions and weapon capability that got Janes in trouble.

A lot of people say the F 15E is too classified to be an effective sim, but that's not true. The F16 would be harder to model currently than its younger cousin. I'm thinking about SEAD here. The A10C carries modern 'smart' weapons as well as the Striike Eagle. The e model carries so many different weapons if you left out ... SDBs who would notice? The engines aren't classified and there is data readily available from the c model a2a capability. (Note I'm aware they do not fly the same). AG radar would need researching, but Janes did it wayyy back when, so....one would believe its possible.

The US doesn't sell any weapon or platform it can't defend against or counter effectively. If we sold 22s then it would mean we can beat it. Right now its the the US air dominace trump card.

True. Still though, it would be as gamers say....EPIC

F15E with a two player per ship option, the simulator would be unmatched.

I would guess that people feel that after flaming cliffs 2 there isn't a lot of room for variety. The F15C is a strait forward aircraft. I feel that the F15E would have been a nice addition to the list and warranted. No one had attempted to takle that jet for many many years

The EA-6 is still in operation today in the USN as a EW platform. Carries a crew of four, and is sometimes equipped with an AGM-88 HARMs for SAM suppression.